If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You have to consider that Eric Dickerson had roughly 30 more rushing attempts. Had Peterson had the same amount of carries as Dickerson had, he would have got the record. And would have beat it by about 300 yards.

So in my opinion, AP's season beats Dickerson's season.

Stop with the "would haves"

I'll give you a "would have", if Dickerson had played with the threat of the modern passing game he "would have" had 2500 yards.

I'll give you a "would have", if Dickerson had played with the threat of the modern passing game he "would have" had 2500 yards.

See how a "would have" works?

I'll stick with what he "did have" thank you.

Eh, his "would have" is pretty accurate, though. 30 more carries for 9 yards.... Yes, it would have happened. Likewise, with the "threat of the modern passing game", Dickerson would have never gotten those 30 extra carries.

Here, in this situation, we can actually judge the "would haves" for their own merit. His is good, your's is lacking.

I wanted AP to get the record. If he had scored a touchdown on the last run, he would have. Or if the Vikings weren't playing for a playoff spot, he would have. Damn shame to come that close to rare greatness, yet fall short.

"Why can't we tell the world that [as the Raiders' coach] you refused to play games in the segregated South, holding out to the point where they were canceled?' And he would stop me dead in my tracks and say, 'Hey, kid -- I didn't do it for publicity. I did it because it was right.' "

Eh, his "would have" is pretty accurate, though. 30 more carries for 9 yards.... Yes, it would have happened. Likewise, with the "threat of the modern passing game", Dickerson would have never gotten those 30 extra carries.

Here, in this situation, we can actually judge the "would haves" for their own merit. His is good, your's is lacking.

Spare me. With the need for defenses to cover the passing game, Dickerson "would have" had more yards per rush.

BTW, just trying to show how an unsubstantiated claim means nothing.

So "would haves" are little more than a meaningless speculation. In this case it is meant to diminish an all time great performance to raise a lesser performance. After the fact, there is a fact, Dickerson has more yards rushing and all the theoretical gymnastics you or the other poster make or claim, that is still the fact.

Spare me. With the need for defenses to cover the passing game, Dickerson "would have" had more yards per rush.

BTW, just trying to show how an unsubstantiated claim means nothing.

So "would haves" are little more than a meaningless speculation. In this case it is meant to diminish an all time great performance to raise a lesser performance. After the fact, there is a fact, Dickerson has more yards rushing and all the theoretical gymnastics you or the other poster make or claim, that is still the fact.

First of all, I didn't perform any mental gymnastics.
Second, I never said I was in agreement with the other poster that his point makes APs season better than Dickerson's.
I simply stated that his hypothetical is absolutely true, where as your's is far more speculative without any real guidelines for judging it or coming to that conclusion.

So, while I agree with your larger point -- at the end of the day, the fact is Dickerson holds the rushing record, period -- and am comfortable with your interpretation (Dickerson's performance was superior), your use of a hypothetical to try and show how another hypothetical is meaningless rally was misplaced and didn't work. Your hypothetical is far more speculative and doesn't make the point you hoped to.